**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
switch instances on the computers.
When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I believe
they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
of 4.
Thx,
Kasper de Jonge
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Hi,
Yes, each instance are independent of each other. So you can define and fix
2 GB RAM for each instance.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Kasper de Jonge" <kdejonge.nospam@.elkerliek.nl> wrote in message
news:40b6f97f@.post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> We're going to set up a Win2003 cluster on two dual cpu with 8 GB of ram
> systems. I'd like to install multiple instances of SQL server so i can
> switch instances on the computers.
> When i use 3 instances of sql server can they each can use 2 GB' I
believe
> they can but i like to check this with you guys before buying 8 GB instead
> of 4.
> Thx,
> Kasper de Jonge
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Showing posts with label ram. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ram. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Multiple instances
If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?
Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David
|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
sql
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?
Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David
|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
sql
Multiple instances
If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Multiple instances
If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Multiple instacnes?
Hi,
I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
databases (all well under 1GB in size).
Running SQL 2005.
we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
read/write, and have medium usage..
Regards
Craig
Craig
> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
you want to separate databases?
Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
instance , you know....
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
business logic and requirement
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
You can put them on READ ONLY file group
"Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> Running SQL 2005.
> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
> Regards
> Craig
|||> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
That may be true. But if you get to a very large number, your GUI tools may
not be as fast you like. Of course, it's not an issue if you don't care about
GUI.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requirement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
our main reason for possibly using separate instances would be that in the
future we may have several databases for applications we host on the same
server - in which case we would either need to uniquely name them or put
them on a different instance...
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ufG6dThcIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why
> would you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on
> single instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>
I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
databases (all well under 1GB in size).
Running SQL 2005.
we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
read/write, and have medium usage..
Regards
Craig
Craig
> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
you want to separate databases?
Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
instance , you know....
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
business logic and requirement
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
You can put them on READ ONLY file group
"Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> Running SQL 2005.
> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
> Regards
> Craig
|||> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
That may be true. But if you get to a very large number, your GUI tools may
not be as fast you like. Of course, it's not an issue if you don't care about
GUI.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requirement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
our main reason for possibly using separate instances would be that in the
future we may have several databases for applications we host on the same
server - in which case we would either need to uniquely name them or put
them on a different instance...
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ufG6dThcIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why
> would you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on
> single instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>
Multiple instacnes?
Hi,
I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
databases (all well under 1GB in size).
Running SQL 2005.
we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
read/write, and have medium usage..
Regards
CraigCraig
> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
you want to separate databases?
Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
instance , you know....
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
business logic and requirement
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
You can put them on READ ONLY file group
"Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> Running SQL 2005.
> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
> Regards
> Craig|||> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
That may be true. But if you get to a very large number, your GUI tools may
not be as fast you like. Of course, it's not an issue if you don't care about
GUI.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Craig
> > does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
> > Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> > easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
> > Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> > read/write, and have medium usage..
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> >
> > I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> > databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> > Running SQL 2005.
> > we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> >
> > So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> > or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> > performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> >
> > Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> > easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> > Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> > read/write, and have medium usage..
> >
> > Regards
> > Craig
>
>|||Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requirement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
our main reason for possibly using separate instances would be that in the
future we may have several databases for applications we host on the same
server - in which case we would either need to uniquely name them or put
them on a different instance...
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ufG6dThcIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Craig
>> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why
> would you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on
> single instance , you know....
>> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
>> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
>> read/write, and have medium usage..
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
>> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
>> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
>> Running SQL 2005.
>> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
>> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same
>> instance? or create a separate instance on the same server? does this
>> have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
>> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
>> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
>> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
>> read/write, and have medium usage..
>> Regards
>> Craig
>
I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
databases (all well under 1GB in size).
Running SQL 2005.
we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
read/write, and have medium usage..
Regards
CraigCraig
> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
you want to separate databases?
Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
instance , you know....
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
business logic and requirement
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
You can put them on READ ONLY file group
"Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> Running SQL 2005.
> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
> Regards
> Craig|||> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
That may be true. But if you get to a very large number, your GUI tools may
not be as fast you like. Of course, it's not an issue if you don't care about
GUI.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Craig
> > does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
> > Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> > easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
> > Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> > read/write, and have medium usage..
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> > I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> >
> > I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> > databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> > Running SQL 2005.
> > we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> >
> > So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> > or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> > performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> >
> > Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> > easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> > Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> > read/write, and have medium usage..
> >
> > Regards
> > Craig
>
>|||Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requirement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
our main reason for possibly using separate instances would be that in the
future we may have several databases for applications we host on the same
server - in which case we would either need to uniquely name them or put
them on a different instance...
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ufG6dThcIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Craig
>> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why
> would you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on
> single instance , you know....
>> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
>> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
>> read/write, and have medium usage..
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
>> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
>> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
>> Running SQL 2005.
>> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
>> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same
>> instance? or create a separate instance on the same server? does this
>> have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
>> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
>> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
>> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
>> read/write, and have medium usage..
>> Regards
>> Craig
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)